Entirely true, people play whatever they want, as long as its what they want to do, and it keeps a great hobby going, but that doesnt stop me cringing at un historical setups, I even struggle playing Hittites against Vikings or Napoleonics against ACW but each to his own.

I can't really comment as I have not played it, just seen it from a distance at our local Clubs and a local shop. In truth, the name put me off from the get-go (rather like Troops Weapons & Tactics) but then I probably count as an overly serious tread head / rivet counter.

I suppose I might give it a go, though generally speaking I like my WW2 games to have combined arms elements.

One thing that I did notice is that generally, gamers are playing this in 28mm scale. I cannot for the life of me understand that. In a pure, dedicated tank game, I would want to see a more accurate scale effect than a scenario where, in real terms, tanks are firing at each other at effectively point blank range. But no doubt you could use WAT in 15mm scale or even smaller.

All of the players involved seemed to be having a good, relaxed time and want to play it again. It has definitely seen a surge of enthusiasm over the past few weeks. Whether that lasts beyond the short term attention span that characterizes many of our local crowd will remain to be seen. The only rule sets that have really "stuck" in my regular circle are Battlegroup and To The Strongest.

The cards are there simply as one-off bonuses if you decide to play a series of encounters, with crew becoming aces in a loose type of campaign. This is where the "World of tanks" influence shines through the clearest, but as such the cards are in no way a requirement to play and enjoy this game.

Hi, I have also done a rules review but combined it with an AAR so it is in a different part of this website. To be clear at the Hitchin club I have yet to see the "unhistorical" gaming that Kieven mentions. I think he may be just talking about somewhere else! I have recently played another game of WAT 1n 15mm. It gave a good game albeit it isn't a fully accurate representation of armoured combat. My only grumble with the rules is the movement/turning rule. Basically it seems that you can move and veer up to 89 degrees but a 90 degree pivot takes a whole move. This seems a tad odd to me and allows players to do some nifty advancing and turning which appears over-the-top.

The turning rule is very unclear. Upon reading we decided that a turn occurred throughout the forward move, in effect the tank's move path described a curve. What this meant that in tight terrain the tank probably could not use the curve and had to pivot instead.

I think it would be a great deal clearer if a turning circle had been made available

We played our first game France 1940, twoH-39s v a panzer ll and 38t.Easy to pick up good fun and next time we are playing it as a four player game.We can see easy ways to adapt it to include anti tank guns and thought the production level was good.Anyone who sticks two fingers up at our pc world in a humorous way gets my vote, if you want serious don’t buy these,as they are not for you!
Each to their own.

It’s a light game, but surprisingly tactical and rewarding. We played a Normandy game in 20mm on a 6x4 table and it looked about right and worked well. Rules are very quick to grasp and with experience a game could be somewhere between one or two hours at the most.

Perfect for a pick up game, all you need is 4-6 tanks and some scenery (and not too much of that either). Probably best as a multiplayer with one tank per player, that way you really have a vested interest in the welfare of your crew. Nice interaction between players that way too.

Sides don’t have to be equal, you could try a Tiger I and Pz IV versus three Shermans and a Firefly. Interesting group dynamics there, especially with the Shermans!

This doesn’t replace any rule system, just a nice, quick tactical game for a group of friends. No need for ahistorical nonsense if that’s not to your taste.

As ever it's a case of to each their own........ The world would be a boring place if we all felt the same way....

Whereas I agree with everyone likes a different game be it What a Tanker/IABSM/Battlegroup/Bolt Action/Flames of War/COC etc etc, I also find ahistorical matchups to be beyond cringe worthy and smacking of laziness (and sometimes just the pursuit of power gaming).

I'd rather not play than have Finns fighting Japanese on a desert board or whatever other daft combo.